Mr. Speaker, we all remember when the Prime Minister, hand on heart, looked longingly into the eyes of Canadians and promised them all that he would be different, that he was not like the old Liberal Party, promising anything to get elected but then once in, betraying that very promise. What ever happened to that guy? We hardly even got to know him.

All the evidence shows that proportional representation not only ensures that every vote counts, it helps elect more women and encourages parties to work together in the national interest.

When will the Prime Minister finally stop all the fearmongering and admit what everybody knows to be true, that the only reason he broke his promise to Canadians on electoral reform was because it was not in the interest of the Liberal Party?

Mr. Speaker, we took this issue very seriously and consulted broadly with Canadians. We talked about this issue, and saw the extent to which there were very many strongly held, divergent views on this issue. We worked very hard on this, but it was clear there was no consensus, that there was no responsible path forward. That is the decision we have made.

Mr. Speaker, we would think the Prime Minister would at least have the decency to blush when he is breaking his promise to Canadians so blatantly, and could at least take that slightly smug look off his face. The way I was raised was that when people broke their word to Canadians, they would find the courage to apologize, which the Prime Minister has yet to do.

Just eight weeks ago, the Prime Minister said, “I make promises because I believe in them”. On consensus, he said that he had heard “loudly and clearly that Canadians want a better system of governance”.

After such obvious deception, how can anyone believe the Prime Minister ever again?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want improvement in their democracy, absolutely. That is why we are moving forward on many things to repeal sections of the unfair elections act brought in by the previous government, why we are making sure that we are protecting Canadians from cybersecurity attacks, and why we are moving forward in many ways to improve our democracy.

However, on changing the way we vote in elections, it was clear there was no consensus. There are strongly held, highly divergent views. There was no responsible way to move forward, so we are looking for other ways to improve our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, here is a quote for you: “I make promises because I believe in them. I’ve heard loudly and clearly that Canadians want a better system of governance, a better system of choosing our governments, and I’m working very hard so that 2015 is indeed the last election under first-past-the-post. Canadians elect governments to do hard things and don’t expect us to throw up our hands when things are a little difficult. No, I’m sorry, that’s not the way I was raised.”

Mr. Speaker, I was raised to consider what is best for the country, to serve it and its citizens in the way they deserve to be served.

That means growing the middle class and helping those working hard to join it. That also means improving our democracy. We have put forward a number of things that we are going to do to improve our democracy. The reality of electoral reform is that it is clear that there was no consensus and no responsible way to move forward with this commitment.

Order, please. Members are certainly entitled to ask difficult and tough questions, but they know they cannot do indirectly what they cannot do directly. Therefore, I invite the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to rephrase his question.

Since the Prime Minister broke his promise on electoral reform, many people have reacted with indignation, which is perfectly normal. People are feeling duped. A lot of people are saying they will never vote for the Liberal Party ever again. That is not surprising.

However, what is even more troubling is that young people who voted for the first time last year are saying that they will never vote again, because they are disgusted by politics.

Was that the Prime Minister's plan all along, to make young people even more cynical?

Mr. Speaker, we are doing things for Canada's youth that have never been done before by any government. For instance, we are increasing funding for post-secondary scholarships so that young people do not have to pay back their student loans until they are earning at least $25,000.

We are transforming the way we are preparing our young people for the future. That is what young people talk to me about when I visit them and during town hall meetings.

Mr. Speaker, last year, I filed an Order Paper question, asking if Finance Canada had an analysis of the impact of the carbon tax on low-income families. The department responded with nothing, suggesting it had done no such analysis.

However, a note to the deputy minister of finance, obtained through access to information, refers to a table that estimates the impact of the carbon price “across earnings groups”. That table is broken down by income quintile, however, all the numbers are blacked out.

Why is the government blacking out and covering the impact of its carbon tax on the poorest Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to talk about the impact of the taxes we have actually reduced for Canadian families. I am pleased to talk about the impact on Canadian families of the introduction of the Canada child benefit. Those specific numbers are important: for the single family, with a reduction in middle-class taxes, $330 more for that person this year; for the family, a $540 reduction in taxes; for the nine out of 10 families that got the Canada child benefit, an average of $2,300 more per year after taxes.

These are very important measures. We know that together with the efforts we are making on the environment we can make a real difference for Canadian—

Mr. Speaker, the measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable. That is why I asked how this carbon tax would impact on the poorest Canadians.

At first, the government said, “No such data exists”. Then it said, “It exists, we just don't want to tell you what it says”. That is the current position of the government? That it wants to keep secret from Canadians, the most vulnerable Canadians, those with the least, the impact of this heavy new carbon tax on heat, hydro, gas, and electricity. Is that what it meant when it promised it wanted to help those trying to join the middle class?

Mr. Speaker, we meant exactly what we said. We want to help those trying to join the middle class and those in the middle class. That is why our policies have been specifically directed to help those who are most vulnerable in our society, to help middle-class Canadians to be in a better situation. We have done it in a myriad ways. We have done it through tax reductions. We have done it through the introduction of the Canada child benefit.

We have helped lower-income and middle-income students to have 50% more money for grants for university. Also, we have helped those most vulnerable in our society, seniors who are below the poverty line, with a 10% increase in the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors.

Mr. Speaker, for more than two months, we, the Conservatives, have been pressing the government to not tax health and dental insurance.

Tomorrow, in a vote, the Liberal government will have the opportunity to acknowledge that we are right. However, there is still cause for concern because the government is eyeing other things with its voracious appetite, such as pension splitting. For Conservatives, this is non-negotiable because it affects 2.5 million Canadians.

Can the Minister of Finance give us assurances today that he will not touch this vital policy, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, in our 2016 budget, we introduced our plan to improve the situation of the middle class and those who want to join it, and that plan has all the measures that really help Canadian families.

In budget 2017, we will continue with our plan. It will be very important for us. We will find ways to strengthen the middle class and our budget will contain very important measures to that end.

Mr. Speaker, the question was crystal clear. Yes or no? Again and again, the minister dodges the issue. This is the House of Commons. This is not the Los Angeles Dodger Stadium. Could he answer that?

The question is quite clear. I will ask it in English this time. Would the minister indicate to the House that 2.5 million Canadians will not be touched because the government does not intend to cut the pension income splitting, yes or no?

Our first budget reduced taxes on Canadians, helped middle-class Canadians, helped those most vulnerable. That is our program.

As we move forward with our budget 2017, which I remind members is not actually today, we will be talking about how we can continue in our efforts to help Canadians, to help middle-class Canadians, to help those most vulnerable.

It will be a meaningful continuation of our agenda, important for Canadians across the country.

Mr. Speaker, last week the parliamentary budget officer confirmed that the Liberals were short-changing communities across Canada by $9 billion in infrastructure and 96% of the announced projects were not under construction. Now we learn that construction companies are shutting down. The CEO of Keystone Excavating said, “2016 was the worst year we've ever had in 35 years.” The projects are not being built and the jobs are not being created.

Will the minister commit today to getting the money out before the spring construction season begins, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, we have approved more funding in the last year than the previous government did in five years combined, 1,200 projects with a combined investment in partnership with municipalities and provinces, $14 billion together, and almost 60% of those projects are currently under way, creating opportunities for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Mr. Speaker, this is the Liberal logic: they put Canadians' money into different programs and they tell themselves that, like the budget, it will all balance itself out. That is not how it works. After the government announced with great fanfare that it was going to invest $13.6 billion in infrastructure in 2016, we have now learned that the Liberals invested only $4.6 billion. My question is simple.

Where is the $9 billion that was supposed to be invested in infrastructure projects for municipalities across Canada?

Mr. Speaker, let me quote some figures: 83 projects for British Columbia with a combined investment of $2.4 billion; 57 projects for the province of Quebec with a combined investment of $1.5 billion; 127 projects for the province of Alberta with a combined investment of $4.2 billion, and the list goes on.

As I said earlier, we have approved more funding for provinces and municipalities in the last year than the previous government did in five years combined.